"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

<quoted text>Using a conservative claim to support your claim doesn't help your case.

they provide the link if you look and takes you right to the Social Security Website where it states

Background to the Case:

The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

<quoted text> More baloney. There is no reason to be;eve SS will disappear in 25 years.Throughout its history, adjustments have been made just like there will be now. Just think in 5 years most baby boomers will likely be dead.

Dumbass Dave hits a new low in studipity considering that baby boomers range in age from 47 to 67.

You really don't know much, do you? If you don't know the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of this world make a killing on keeping racial division alive and well, you're sounding a lot like Homer Simpson.

I cant support a movement that tells me I cant be a friend to whomever I wish or that other peoples races requires me to think about them in a certain way or be suspicious of their advancements, Black wrote toward the end of his four-page statement.Minorities must have the ability to rise to positions of power, and many supposed race issues are in fact issues of structural oppression, poor educational prospects, and limited opportunity. The differences I thought I observed didnt go nearly as deeply as I imagined. I believe we can move beyond the sort of mind-boggling emphasis white nationalism puts on maintaining an oppressive, exclusive sense of identity  oppressive for others and stifling for our society.

<quoted text>When Dem suggested your daughter might need surgery and not have in insurance you said she would get treated for free if she couldn't pay. By "free" you mean other customers of the health care system will pay for it.Liar AND socialist.

I never said anything of the kind. Go back to sleep. Or drink some more coffee before posting again.

Just two weeks after Janet Napolitano announced her resignation as Secretary of Homeland Security, the Congressional Black Caucus has suggested Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston fill her spot.A letter dated July 25 and signed by Rep. Marcia Fudge, Ohio Democrat and caucus chairwoman, urges President Obama to consider Miss Jackson Lee for the position, calling the Democrat a voice of reason that the agency could stand to gain, the Houston Chronicle reported.Representative Jackson Lee would serve as an effective DHS Secretary because she understands the importance of increasing border security and maintaining homeland security, the letter reads.Mrs. Jackson Lee currently serves as a ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, a position that the caucus said she stands as a strong and honest voice of reason.

<quoted text>Recently heard a Muslim Middle Eastern expert explain that most radical Islamists are uneducated and can't read. The only way they can feel relevant in today's world is through violence and terrorism.Made a lot of sense to me.

"Recently heard ..."This a funny generalization,as generalization go.You may be fooled easily if this "Made a lot of sense ".

I shouldn't say "never", I think its an idea that will happen, I just don't think we're there yet. I think the information economy will cause central government authority to become obsolete and this is the sort of thing that may replace it, at least in some places.

<quoted text>A surgeon's expertise should be compensated just like any medical physician who spent years in school and in residency to become a doctor.But the attitudes in the medical profession, inflated egos and apathy, sometimes peaks even before a medical student becomes a full-fledged doctor.And unnecessary tests and procedures are done on a routine "knee-jerk reflex" basis because of the fear of being frivolously sued.Few people respect the medical profession anymore. There's a good reason for that.A hospital admission just means everyone can get on board the gravy train - and many do. Specialty doctors are called in for "consults" and get paid just for dictating something in your chart whether they actually treated you or not.This is not how it's supposed to work.Just eliminating the outrageous costs of medical supplies and unnecessary tests alone would reduce costs. Making insurance competitive nationwide is another.But very few surgeons and specialist are worth the god-awful amounts of money the insurances pays them and patients getting stuck with the rest of an outrageous bill.Doctors used to work for a chicken. It's supposed to be "a calling". Not an insurance Ponzi scheme.

Gimme a number for earnings, not a speech.

Or break it down to one procedure; how much should an orthopedic surgeon be paid to repair a badly fractured ankle requiring plates, pins, screws, etc? Just his fee, not the hospital cost.

What "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" Can Teach Us About Don Lemon's Suggestion That Black People Should Pull Up Their Pants and Pick Up LitterTo much condemnation by "Black Twitter" and other social media, CNN's Don Lemon said that black people could improve their lot in life by following his suggestions and guidelines about their personal comportment and behavior.Given that the context and prompt for his advice was the murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, Lemon's suggestions are especially noxious.As an African-American, Lemon is recycling the politics of "black respectability", what is a very old tradition in black life and social thought. He is dead center in the centuries-long tradition of black political thought.But, he has no appreciation for its nuances.Lemon's argument, that black folks should pick up litter, pull up their pants, and stop making babies everywhere out of wedlock, reveals a piss poor understanding of the relationship between life chances, institutional racism, political economy, and race in post civil rights America. Lemon is also factually challenged.Not all of us are properly trained social scientists. That does not render one mute in speaking about issues of American politics, society, and public/private life.But, given his national and high-profile position, I would expect a bit more from Don Lemon. Maybe he should read a few books and articles by serious people such as William Julius Wilson, Sudhir Venkatesh, Cathy Cohen, Mary Patillo, John Jackson, Joseph Stiglitz, Michelle Alexander, Elijah Anderson, Mario Small, and others before offering up his half-processed folksy wisdom from the barbershop tailor made for public (white) consumption about black poverty, race, and upward mobility? I dare to dream.Alas, Don Lemon is part of a long tradition of public scolding by African-Americans against "deviants" in their own community, one which recycles white racism under the guise of "black tough love". History suggests that Don Lemon has much good company in this very profitable public performance: a book is no doubt forthcoming; there will be a speaking tour too.Don Lemon proudly proclaimed that he is going to be an Uncle Tom. Who am I to interfere with a man's dreams?http://www.chaunceydevega.com/2013/07/what-it...

This reaction is why the black community remains in poverty, failures regardless of government assistance.

<quoted text>Start With the Man in the Mirror, Don LemonThe CNN anchor's "tough talk" fails to reflect what's really going on in the black community.What Lemon did on his show -- wagging his finger at all the pants-sagging, littering, unwed high school dropouts -- was a mutation of truth telling. He was nothing more than a tattletale, pointing excitedly to all the things his brothers and sisters are doing wrong in the hopes of what? A reward? A pat on the back? A seat at Bill O'Reilly's table?http://www.theroot.com/views/start-man-mirror...

lolololololhahahahaha dont show WHITE PEOPLE YOUR DIRTY LAUNDRY lololololhaahahahahah BIGOTS RACISTS lololololhahahaha GET EM CNN lololol OBAMA lolololhahaha LIBERALS putting darkie in check for HILLARY hahahahaha lolololol SAME SCRIPT ELECTION SEASON IS HERE AGAIN lololololol NOW THE BLACKMAN GOES UNDER THE BUS lolololol THE WHITEMAN WENT UNDER THE BUS FOR OBAMA NOW THE BLACKMAN GOES UNDER THE BUS FOR HILLARY hahahahahaha ROLL OVER

<quoted text>Let's see...Providing food and buying their oil. Oh, yeah. I can see where that would piss them off.Installing the Shah. Let's count the bodies from the Shah's era and compare that to the mountain of corpses the mullahs stacked up. Yeah. I can see where not letting a murderous horde take over a country would piss them off. Let's count the middle class Iranians in universities here and in Europe when the Shah ran Iran, and compare that to the number of middle class Iranians being educated in western universities today. Yeah. I can see where educating the population would piss them off."targetted by Islam"Let's take a look at where Islam borders the rest of the world and compare that with your idiocy. How about we start with Morocco.Morocco sends terrorists into Spain.Algeria is separated from the rest of the world by the Mediterranean Sea.Lybia is a source for international terrorists.Egypt is routinely at war with Israel.The entire border of Israel is a war zone.Lebanon is a war zone.They had to build a wall across Cyprus to separate the Islamists from everyone else.The Balkans.No war across the Black Sea.Georgia and Daghestan.No war across the Caspian Sea.Iran...Afghanistan...Pakistan is at war with India routinely.No war across the Indian Ocean.You fucking idiots don't see that Islam finds some reason to be at war with every goddam thing it is in contact with.The only reason they are at war with us is we exist. If we didn't exist, they would be at war with whatever other country occupied our place in the world, which is superior to their place, which is the real reason Islam is at war with everything it is in contact with.

I know y'all have a problem with perspective. Perspective is fundamental to International Relations. You look at everything from a US-centric perspective and the rest of the world has their own. You're not the only one, Carol's one of the worst. Everything is viewed from a late-20th Century, middle-class, white, american, female perspective.

<quoted text>Recently heard a Muslim Middle Eastern expert explain that most radical Islamists are uneducated and can't read. The only way they can feel relevant in today's world is through violence and terrorism.Made a lot of sense to me.

And somehow they managed to gain control of the Arab world.Yes, my observations from living there are similar. They are sufficiently numerous to propel the powers that be there into power.The Wahhabists have regained control of everything they lost after 9/11(2001), and added to that.I was not too surprised when the army in Egypt threw the Muslim Brotherhood out on its ass. It was the Muslim Brotherhood inside the Egyptian army that assassinated Sadat. After that the Egyptian army was thoroughly purged of them.It's ironic, but the best hope for a republican form of government in Egypt is the army there. The Muslim Brotherhood had only one thing in mind, to eliminate any other faction. That's why the Egyptian army stepped in.

Youve probably seen a clip of it already: Fox News aired a cringe-worthy interview of the author of the latest Jesus tell-all book on Friday, much to the delight of many on the internet. In the now-viral interview, Fox News anchor and religion correspondent Lauren Green shows zero interest in the arguments or content of scholar Reza Aslans new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.

Instead, she leads off the interview with Youre a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity? Aslans eyebrows threaten to rise right off of his face, but he comports himself honorably in a painful ten-minute conversation that never moves past this misguided line of questioning:It still begs the question though, why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?

But even if Greens line of questioning werent laced with xenophobia, ignorant about the purpose of scholarship, or breathtakingly incurious, it would still be problematic. There is a deeper philosophical problem behind focusing on the fact that Aslan is a Muslim.

Lets suppose for the sake of argument the following: Reza Aslan brings personal biases and prejudices from his Muslim faith to his study of the historical Jesus; the liberal media is breathlessly excited by Aslans book, even though it merely rehashes debates that have been going on in historical Jesus studies for decades, because that media tends to be hostile to traditional Christian faith.

In fact, there may very well be reason to believe those things. But to think that they have anything to do with the merits of Aslans arguments about Jesus is to engage in a logical fallacy that C.S. Lewis called Bulverism. He explains:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.

Bulverism a great way to score points while getting no closer to the truth, and it comprises perhaps 95% of writing about religion on the internet.

If youre actually interested in Zealot, you shouldnt care about Aslan, or Fox, but about the man from Galilee: what was he like? what did he teach? was he the Christ? If youre looking for answers to that question, Aslans Muslim faith, Foxs hostility, and any number of dreary facts about Americas cultural grievances are strictly irrelevant.

Textual criticism and and historical methodology can be boring and hard. Questioning motives and feigning outrage is always fun and easy, and serves as a particularly shallow way for people to engage in intellectual triage. Thats why interesting subjects only suffer when they get dragged into the culture wars.

<quoted text>His philosophy on life is easy enough to understand. He's somewhere between a leech and a sponge.

So, this is why Ronald Reagan was a 'leech and a sponge' He never said anything original and took advantage of other peoples misfortune to advance his own political career. You can see the proof in his 1980 Presidential campaign that started off in Philadelphia, Mississippi(the place where three civil rights workers in the Mississippi Summer Project of 1964-two Jews and a Black, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Chaney-had been murdered). Reagan wasn't there to support civil rights ,but side with the states rights to remain racially segregated. Reagan's visit to Bitburg Cemetery ( the place where many Nazis SS members were buried) further revealed his moral callousness.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.